Regretting the many loopholes that the resolution presents which could allow despotic governments to clamp down on free assembly, such as the lack of a definition or qualifier for “harm” in clause 3, potentially obligating governments to forbid protests or demonstrations based on minor, technical and irrelevant harms, such as increased taxes on the most wealthy in society...
While certainly the loose definition of harm is problematic, the resolution in question merely allows the government to 'put down', as it could be exaggerated as, the protest, never obligated. Furthermore, if a nation were to do such an action with a clearly inappropriate definition of harm, one could expect it to cause backlash from the WA, if only hindered from resulting legal dispute. While certainly a problem to be solved, a repeal is not an appropriate solution. After all, is there no supreme court for the WA?
Concerned, however, that Clause 1 allows denizens to abuse the rights granted by it to evade incarceration, punishment, or other repercussions for their crimes - a significant hindrance to the execution of justice, by extending the right to assemble to “all individuals” regardless of their criminal status...
I don't believe this to be true, based on the resolution in question. Criminals are most certainly allowed to protest, but that won't allow them to avoid punishments for their crimes. Even if the crimes are related to the protests, there is no such clause that prevents arrest so long as the arrest is unrelated to protesting at all. And, most crimes, I think, can be reasonably interpreted as violating the 'peaceful' clause of the resolution. Criminals who have served their time have the right to protest, and criminals who will so be arrested have the right to protest. The resolution doesn't say that a criminal who is amongst the protestors cannot be arrested, merely that a peaceful assembly cannot be put down.
Worried that clause 2 of the resolution does not prevent protests which cause harm to members of the public, for example protests organised on a public highway, those which would block the route of emergency vehicles, or protests that take place in dangerous or unhealthy conditions, as clause 2 states governments may only restrict the freedom of assembly when “individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing”...
Clause 2 of resolution 27 states "No Government... may take any action to infringe upon [the rights from clause 1]; unless... circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing.", therefore concerns over "protests that take place in dangerous or unhealthy conditions" are misplaced. The resolution also prevents "protest which cause harm to members of the public" by clarifying in clause 1 that these rights only extend to peaceful protests.
Saddened that, while it bars those who call for violence via direct action from its protections, the resolution shields those who do so via calls for deliberate inaction, such as by urging law enforcement officers to refrain from protecting individuals of a certain racial group...
This is a serous concern, but one that is better solved by another resolution, then by removing this one. Although I'd hesitate to say this is a bad as implied. It does not allow police to listen to protestors in that regard, and police intervention because of race is prohibited by other resolutions. I don't believe a protest as boldly racist as this hypothetical should exist, but this case can, and should, be handled by a further resolution rather than by repealing this one.
Appalled that clause 3 does not extend its prohibition to demonstrations that call for violence against the imprisoned, accused or convicted, only applying its protections to the nebulously defined group of “innocent people”...
The resolution in question is the most vague resolution I've read. However, I do not believe that it allows, by any reasonable interpretation, a call for violence against the imprisoned, as, in this circumstance, they are innocent to the protestors. However, much like most of the resolution, it needs clarification.
Believing that more detailed and comprehensive legislation is required to address the issues raised in this resolution...
Most certainly an additional resolution is vital, but removing the original piece is a mistake. Merely a resolution that extends protection in certain cases is needed. It is unreasonable to say resolution 27 explicitly allows abuse of powers by protestors, so we need not repeal it.
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:38 am